Here is my analysis for question 17 in section 3 for prep test 72. This is a weaken question; therefore, I wanted to weaken the connection between the premises and the conclusion.
Argument Analysis:
"If males are assigned to Veblen South, then Wisteria North is assigned males."
Can I take the contrapositive of this as such: "If Wisteria North is **not** assigned males, then Veblen South is **not** assigned males." And then translate ...
Hi fam!
So, This is your straightforward Sufficient Assumption Question. If you have a moment you can work out the logic and make your way to a correct answer. Sometimes however, you can see the elements you need to bridge the gap without writing ...
So this question is easy enough when I take a moment to write out the logic. Even so, I'd like some advice on how to attempt this without enough time to parse out and write down the logic of each answer choice until I get to the right one. Unless the rule ...
I am unable to fully comprehend this question and cannot materialize it into an example involving actual numbers (this question seems like a math question to me). Is anyone able to help using examples? Thank you!
I just missed your group study on Jan 8th. Here is one question I don't know why C is the best answer to Q13.
As the two sentences are responses from Bordwell in proving musicals still fit into his theory, he mentioned ...
The question asks what the word "succession" in line 57 refers to. I read back over the part and thought that it referred to the action of "clearing followed by regular burning" and picked A. However it is C and I don't really understand why?
I'm having a hard time understanding why answer choice D) in Question 13 is wrong even though I have watched the video multiple times already. I was left with C) and D) timed.
Initially I thought "large geographical areas" in D) was fine b/c ...
I've been looking at this question for the last 20 minutes, watched the JY's explanation, and looked through the comments. Still have no idea what is going on. Can someone help explain it to me?
I don't really understand answer choice A) if there is no overwhelming evidence for or against a hypo. then one should "suspend judgment as to its truth". What does it mean by "as to its truth"? Anyone could help?
I found this to be an incredibly difficult question. I did get the question right, but I did not feel good at all about my answer choice timed or in blind review. I eliminated the other answer choices because they just ...
I don't understand how A can be the answer.
A says "no evidence in favor of a hypothesis," but the proponents of the hypothesis is giving us evidence. He explains the fossil thing etc how come this doesn't count as evidence backing up his claim? < ...
I am retaking this PT and I **really** struggled with this passage. In particular, I have trouble understanding the difference between studies being debunked vs. studies giving two opposing facts. ...
I am having such a tough time on this question. I have written out my thinking, watched the explanation a few times and I am still stumped by this question. Answer C is ...
So on question 12 JY mentioned a bi conditional because there was a /S-->H, /H-->S, and also a S-->/H, and a H-->/S. However, to get the first set of conditionals, the original chain was /S-->J-->H. Can you simply say that this= /S-->H ...
This is killing me! Why can JNOP be a correct answer just because we happened to pick J first? Okay, if J is the necessary then O and N can go in too and also because they are OR groups and so both can be in S okay. But then why can't be ...
I am just really confused of why the right answer is B.
My thought process was this:
C: It is advisable for businesses to implement such variations.
Why? because of all the information above. When I read this I thought there ...
I know there is an answer to this question out there, but I am really confused on the conditional logic here. If someone can break that down for me, it would greatly help me understand when the other answer choices are wrong and further help me see why D ...
would some one please help me understand how to properly translate answer choice E into formal logic? i have some idea from the discussion in the video explanation, but im having issues identifying the cues that led to these translations.
I put D as my answer to this question, but the correct answer is A. I don't understand why, since the stipulation for a work to be considered unique is for it to have historical or aesthetic value. How would that apply to an unflattering painting of ...
I find this strengthening question particularly tricky. Can anyone help explain why E) is the correct answer? Also explaining why C) isn't would be helpful!
In this question why do we "attack" the premise. I thought we don't really try to attack the premise but in this question it does. How often does this type of question show up on the LSAT? I understand this question just a little bit but I am unsure why ...